So the other day when I wrote how I would run the 2006 Democratic Campaign. Robert said how, typical for a democrat, I would be attacking republicans. I said it's the republicans who attack and have provided tons of proof over my posts to prove me right. Here is more examples. They are nothing but echo machines. Here is the right-wing news and talk media on the NY Times and the publishing of the fact the US is seeing our bank records:
* Melanie Morgan, radio talk show host: "I see it as treason, plain and simple, and my advice to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at this point in time is chop-chop, hurry up, let's get these prosecutors fired up and get the subpoenas served, get the indictments going, and get these guys [Keller and The New York Times] behind jail." [MSNBC's Hardball, 6/26/06]
* Ann Coulter, right-wing pundit: [R]evealing a classified program, which no one thinks violates any laws ... that has led to the capture of various terrorists, and to various terrorist money-laundering operations. If that is not treason, then we're not prosecuting anymore." [MSNBC's Scarborough Country, 6/26/06]
* William Kristol, editor, The Weekly Standard: "I think the Justice Department has an obligation to consider prosecution. ... This isn't a partisan thing of the Bush administration. This is a U.S. government secret program in a time of war, willfully exposed for no good reason by The New York Times." [Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, 6/25/06]
Many other conservative media figures took to the airwaves to simply bash the Times for purportedly aiding the terrorists and putting American citizens in greater danger:
* L. Brent Bozell III, president, Media Research Center: "The New York Times needs to be reminded ... that on September 11, 2001, something really awful happened right down the street from the newspaper. ... And the last thing we need is The New York Times aiding and abetting the terrorist movement. And that's exactly what they're doing by divulging these secrets." [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 6/27/06]
* Rush Limbaugh, syndicated radio host: "I think 80 percent of their subscribers have to be jihadists. If you look at The New York Times and the kind of stories they're leaking and running and the information they're getting, it's clear that they're trying to help the terrorists. They're trying to help the jihadists." Limbaugh added that he thought that "80 percent of their subscribers have to be jihadists." According to the latest circulation statistics, the Times sells more than 690,000 copies of its daily edition, and more than 1.1 million subscribers to its Sunday edition, via home delivery. [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 6/27/06]
* Andrew McCarthy, senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies: "Yet again, The New York Times was presented with a simple choice: help protect American national security or help al Qaeda. Yet again, it sided with al Qaeda." ["The Media's War Against the War Continues," National Review Online, 6/23/06]
* Newt Gingrich, former House speaker (R-GA) and Fox News political analyst: "You would think that The New York Times, located on the same island where the World Trade Center once existed, would have some residual memory of 9-11. You'd think that The New York Times ... would have some sense of survival. ... [M]y sense is that they hate George W. Bush so much that they would be prepared to cripple America in order to go after the president." [Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, 6/26/06]
* Michael Barone, U.S. News & World Report senior writer: "Why do they hate us? Why does the Times print stories that put America more at risk of attack? ... We have a press that is at war with an administration, while our country is at war against merciless enemies. The Times is acting like an adolescent kicking the shins of its parents, hoping to make them hurt while confident of remaining safe under their roof. But how safe will we remain when our protection depends on the Times?" ["Why do "they" hate us?" syndicated column, 6/26/06]
* Morton M. Kondracke, Roll Call executive editor: "And for God's sake, The New York Times ought to look down the street and remember where 9-11 happened. It really happened in New York City, you know? And they act as though it never happened." [Fox News' The Beltway Boys, 6/24/06]
* Heather McDonald, contributing editor to the Manhattan Institute's City Journal: "By now it's undeniable: The New York Times is a national security threat. So drunk is it on its own power and so antagonistic to the Bush administration that it will expose every classified antiterror program it finds out about, no matter how legal the program, how carefully crafted to safeguard civil liberties, or how vital to protecting American lives." ["National Security Be Damned," The Weekly Standard, July 3 issue]
Sounds like an echo to me. Nevermind we have freedom of the press in this country, nevermind THIS IS NOT LEGAL, nevermind WHAT BUSH IS DOING IS TREASON but the Times should be tried??
What's wrong with this?
8 comments:
Just to clear the record, my comment in the earlier post was not really about attacks. My point was, and still is, that Democrats don't say what they will do differently than Republicans. Democrats have no platform other than:
Vote for us because Republicans are always wrong and we are not Republicans.
What they should say is look where Republican rule has gotten us.
And by the way Democrats would end this war the only thing you hear from republicans is stay the course. Who has a plan?
"What they should say is look where Republican rule has gotten us."
That's my point, exactly.
"And by the way Democrats would end this war"
That's not a plan.
They would let the Iraq government run their country. The democrats would have NEVER invaded Iraq to begin with since the U.N. inspections WERE working at the time. The Democrats would have solely worked on the person responsible for 9/11 and that was not, as W., Cheney and the right wing media have said Saddam but Bin Laden. That's what would have been done.
"The democrats would have NEVER invaded Iraq to begin with since the U.N. inspections WERE working at the time. The Democrats would have solely worked on the person responsible for 9/11 and that was not, as W., Cheney and the right wing media have said Saddam but Bin Laden."
That's all water under the bridge. By the way, I personally disagree that this is what the Democrats would have done, but that's not important.
"They would let the Iraq government run their country."
And what would we do 5 minutes later when the Iraqi government is overrun by insurgents?
But again I ask as well what plan do the republicans have? And the insurgents just want us out.
"But again I ask as well what plan do the republicans have?"
I can't speak for the Republican party, especially since I am not a member. Also, it's not an entirely cohesive entity where everybody shares the same opinions and outlooks either. However, I'll try my best to interpret their overall stand on some issues.
Iraq: This conflict will continue until the Iraqi government is better prepared to run the country and better provide their own military to deal with terrorists and insurgents. Nobody thinks this will occur shortly. There are signs that we will begin lessening the troop count to some degree this year but this will be a long drawn out process with plenty of bumps along the way. Overall, the goal is to have another ally in the middle east and a stronghold where we may have to eventually confront Iran.
Energy: I believe the Republican intention to relying less on foreign oil is to (A) Explore and drill in more places in North America such as in the Pacific Coast, The northern Rocky Mountain states (Idaho, Wyoming, Montana), and of course, Alaska. (B) While we drill, more research should be done concerning the replacement of oil as an energy source. Just for the record, Ethanol is probably not the answer and I'll discuss this further in my own blog next week.
The Economy:The tax cuts have stimulated the economy. Virtually every aspect of the U.S. economy is doing well (unemployment, interest rates, inflation, and the Gross National Product). Tax cuts will continue and stimulate growth.
I personally am not entirely in favor of all of this. But I must say that while Republicans don't always do what I agree with, their agenda is much clearer than what I get from Democrats. To repeat myself, all I really get from Democrats is:
"Anything and everything Republicans do is wrong."
Post a Comment